Student Writing Performance: Identifying the Effects when Combining Planning and Revising Instructional Strategies

The purpose of the current study is to identify the impact of teaching students to revise their stories on writing production (Total Words Written; TWW), writing accuracy (Percent Correct Writing Sequences; %CWS), number of critical story elements included in stories, and quality of writing. Three third-grade and one fourth-grade student who were experiencing difficulties in the area of writing were involved in the study. The students were first taught to plan their stories using the evidence-based program, Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD), which has frequently been implemented to teach students to plan their stories. Students were then taught to revise their stories using SRSD procedures modified for instruction in revision strategies. Student progress was evaluated through a multiple-probe design across tasks and a multiple-probe design across participants, which allowed for experimental control over time and across story probes. In addition to the previously mentioned variables, student’s acceptability of the intervention and their attitudes toward writing were also assessed. Results indicated that instruction in revising increased student writing accuracy beyond the effects of instruction in planning. Additionally, although instruction in planning was shown to increase writing production, number of critical story elements, and quality of writing, instruction in revising produced additional improvement in these variables as well. Finally, results indicated that students liked the intervention and their attitudes toward writing generally increased. Implications for practice and future research directions will be discussed. Advisor: Merilee McCurdy

Wildlife Master Volunteers: A Multi-County Approach to Resolving Human-Wildlife Conflicts

The Wildlife Master (WM) Program in Colorado was modeled after the highly successful Master Gardener volunteer program. In 10 highly populated suburban counties with large rural areas surrounding the Denver Metro Area, Colorado State University (CSU) Cooperative Extension Natural Resources agents train, supervise and manage these volunteers in the identification, referral, and resolution of wildlife damage issues. High quality, research-based training is provided by university faculty and other professionals in public health, animal damage control, wildlife management and animal behavior. Inquiries are responded to mainly via telephone. Calls by concerned residents are forwarded to WMs who provide general information about human-wildlife conflicts and possible ways to resolve complaints. Each volunteer serves a minimum of 14 days on phone duty annually, calling in from a remote location to a voice mail system from which phone messages can be conveniently retrieved. Response time per call is generally less than 24 hours. During 2004, more than 2,000 phone calls, e-mail messages and walk-in requests for assistance were fielded by 100 cooperative extension WMs. Calls fielded by volunteers in one county increased five-fold during the past five years, from 100 calls to over 500 calls annually. Valued at the rate of approximately $18.00 per volunteer hour, the leveraged value of each WM was about $450 in 2005, based on 25 hours of service and training. The estimated value of the program to Colorado in 2004 was over $45,000 of in-kind service, or about one full-time equivalent faculty member. This paper describes components of Colorado’s WM Program, with guides to the set-up of similar programs in other states.